From Encarta Encyclopedia
Encarta Encyclopedia
Jihad, in Islam, the spiritual struggle against evil. Jihad is the duty of
all mainstream Muslims, or Sunnites. There are four ways they may fulfill a
jihad: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. These refer to the
inner, spiritual battle of the heart against vice, passion, and ignorance;
spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue; choosing to do good and
avoiding evil with one's hand; and waging war against non-Muslims with the
sword.
Islamic law divides the world into dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) and dar
al-harb (abode of war-that is, of non-Muslim rule). Most modern branches of
Islam stress the inner, spiritual jihad. But Islamic law also states that
all nations must surrender to Islamic rule, if not its faith. Until that
time, all adult, male, and able-bodied Muslims are expected to take part in
hostile jihads against non-Muslim neighbors and neighboring lands. The
Qur'an (Koran) states that those who die in this type of jihad automatically
become martyrs of the faith and are awarded a special place in heaven.
For Muslims, there exist two kinds of non-Muslim enemies: kafir
(nonbelievers in Islam) and ahl al-kitab (people of the book). Kafir, such
as Buddhists and Hindus (see Buddhism; Hinduism), must either convert to
Islam or face execution. Once converted to Islam it is a capital offense to
renounce the faith. People of the book include Jews, Christians, and
followers of Zoroastrianism. These people need only submit to Muslim
political authority to avoid or end a jihad. They may keep their original
faith, but their status becomes dhimmi (a "protected" non-Muslim) and they
must pay a prescribed poll tax.
In contrast to mainstream Sunnites, Muslim groups such as the Imami and
BohoraIsmaili- Shiites are forbidden from participating in a hostile jihad.
These sects believe the only person legitimately capable of conducting such
a jihad is their imam, or spiritual leader.

My point is that Islamic Law appears to say: All non Muslims must submit to Islamic rule, and if you are a Hindu or Buhdist you should be executed.
Islamic law also states that
all nations must surrender to Islamic rule, if not its faith. Until that
time, all adult, male, and able-bodied Muslims are expected to take part in
hostile jihads against non-Muslim neighbors and neighboring lands.
We are being told that Islam is a peacful Religion, and I am saying that that is possibly total BS.

There is iron in your words of death for all to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life or death. It shall be life.

and if someone really wanted to, they could probably make a case for the same exact actions and attitudes for Christians using the Bible.
so i don't really understand your point. are you just looking for a reason to dislike Muslims or was this a sincere effort to understand Islam? no flame, just curious.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

hmmmm.
I like this explaination a little better, note the passages that are used as reference:
[url]http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/jargon/jihad2.htm[/url]
For example:
11. FREEING PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY:
Allah admonishes Muslims in the Qur'an:
"And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You, one who will protect; and raise for us from You, one who will help.'" (4:75)
The mission of the Prophet Muhammad (S) was to free people from tyranny and exploitation by oppressive systems. Once free, individuals in the society were then free to chose Islam or not. Prophet Muhammad's (S) successors continued in his footsteps and went to help oppressed people. For example, after the repeated call by the oppressed people of Spain to the Muslims for help, Spain was liberated by Muslim forces and the tyrant rulers removed. After the conquest of Syria and Iraq by the Muslims, the Christian population of Hims reportedly said to the Muslims:
"We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny under which we have been living." (7)
The defeated rulers of Syria were Roman Christians, and Iraq was ruled by Zoarastrian Persians

"In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims. If an individual Muslim were to commit an act of terrorism, this person would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam."
[url]http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch3-11.htm[/url]
A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam.
This Islamic guide is for non-Muslims who would like to understand Islam, Muslims (Moslems), and the Holy Quran (Koran). It is rich in information, references, bibliography, and illustrations.
[url]http://www.islam-guide.com/[/url]
IF you are really interested.
There are various sects to Islam. This page seems like a general overview of the basic tenents of Islam.

I agree people can twist any Religion into a ticket for violence (crusades, etc...) But does the Quran actually talk about making non-Muslims submit to Muslims, and that Hindus and Buhdist be killed? And yes, there is plenty of violence in the Old Testament towards non Jews. However, there is nothing in the New Testament about Holy War against non Christians by Christians.
I want to know if part of Islam is the conquering of non Muslims?
Christianity is not concerned with the physical occupation or conquering of other "non-Christian" nations, it appears that Islam might.
Do you get my point now ArLady?

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:
I agree people can twist any Religion into a ticket for violence (crusades, etc...) But does the Quran actually talk about making non-Muslims submit to Muslims, and that Hindus and Buhdist be killed? And yes, there is plenty of violence in the Old Testament towards non Jews. However, there is nothing in the New Testament about Holy War against non Christians by Christians.
I want to know if part of Islam is the conquering of non Muslims?
Christianity is not concerned with the physical occupation or conquering of other "non-Christian" nations, it appears that Islam might.
Do you get my point now ArLady?

View Quote

From what I know, there are two types of Jihad.
One form is a "struggle" against evil & the bettering of oneself.
The other involves "holy war"...but only in Self Defense.
As for the Quranic verses that pertain to this, you would have to ask an authority or expert on the matter...which I am not.
Kind of like Christians (Jews) who read/have a Bible (Torah), but few are true experts or authoritarians on the subject.

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given [b](to defend themselves)[/b], because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'..." (22:39-40)
"The Qur'an permits fighting to defend the religion of Islam and the Muslims. This permission includes fighting in self-defense and for the protection of family and property. The early Muslims fought many battles against their enemies under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad (S) or his representatives. For example, when the pagans of Quraysh brought armies against Prophet Muhammad (S), the Muslims fought to defend their faith and community (3)."
[url]http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/jargon/jihad2.htm[/url]
Of course, this can be twisted by the radicals if they believe they are being attacked by outside forces such as the USA or Israel.
Fanatics I say.

People keep saying this, but it isnt borne out by history. Mohammad waged a war to retake Mecca. In the ten generations following his death the Arabs, his people, had conquered from Afganistan to Gibralter. That does not sound like pacifism to me. None of those people they attacked, the Byzantines, Visigoths, Persians- even knew about the Arabs before they were attacked, much less comitting a act of agression against them.

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
People keep saying this, but it isnt borne out by history. Mohammad waged a war to retake Mecca. In the ten generations following his death the Arabs, his people, had conquered from Afganistan to Gibralter. That does not sound like pacifism to me. None of those people they attacked, the Byzantines, Visigoths, Persians- even knew about the Arabs much less attacked them.

View Quote

Well, I wasn't there & I am not a student of history. I would have to read some more to verify what you are saying.
Maybe you can post a link for us to read?
However, just like science, for every article that says one thing there are two that say just the opposite. Whom shall we believe?
I know my knowledge base from what I was taught in religion classes...not that I paid that much attention...I had other things on my mind at that age.

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:
I agree people can twist any Religion into a ticket for violence (crusades, etc...) But does the Quran actually talk about making non-Muslims submit to Muslims, and that Hindus and Buhdist be killed? And yes, there is plenty of violence in the Old Testament towards non Jews. However, there is nothing in the New Testament about Holy War against non Christians by Christians.
I want to know if part of Islam is the conquering of non Muslims?
Christianity is not concerned with the physical occupation or conquering of other "non-Christian" nations, it appears that Islam might.
Do you get my point now ArLady?

View Quote

yes, i get your point now. i wasn't trying to be nasty, by the way.
edited cuz in the time it took me to write this, the snipped stuff was already irrelevant. [:)]
[url]www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/jargon/jihad2.htm[/url]
[url]answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/war.html[/url]
[url]www.submission.org/terrorism.html[/url]
from this last link

The religion of Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, irrespective of the cause - religious, political or social beliefs.
Quran, the Muslims' holy book and scripture declares;
[Quran 6:151] "...... You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
[Quran17:33] "You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. ....."

View Quote

i think you're seeing a complete bastardization of the true meaning of the [i]jihad[/i] in that encyclopedia's definition.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
People keep saying this, but it isnt borne out by history. Mohammad waged a war to retake Mecca. In the ten generations following his death the Arabs, his people, had conquered from Afganistan to Gibralter. That does not sound like pacifism to me. None of those people they attacked, the Byzantines, Visigoths, Persians- even knew about the Arabs much less attacked them.

View Quote

Well, I wasn't there & I am not a student of history. I would have to read some more to verify what you are saying.
Maybe you can post a link for us to read?
However, just like science, for every article that says one thing there are two that say just the opposite. Whom shall we believe?
I know my knowledge base from what I was taught in religion classes...not that I paid that much attention...I had other things on my mind at that age.

View Quote

This reminds me of the author who came out recently & said that very few people had firearms during the Revolutionary War. There was/is an uproar over this in the "gun world' but reviewing the book shows references for his point of view.
Just observing that anyone can make a case for anything if they set their mind to it.

islam is no more inherently violent than christianity.
in the hands of zealots, christianity has been used to justify crusades, pogroms, wars of reformation and counter-reformation, and inquisitions. it has been used to justify enslavement and persecution ever since it was adopted as the state religion of imperial rome.
it continues to be used as an excuse for violence in places like ireland.
this does not make christianity evil, any more than guns are evil. i submit that the people who hide behind any religion while perpetrating crimes are evil, not the religion.

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
[url]http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/his211/LectureTwo/ArabConquests636.htm[/url]
I cant beleve you dont know this. This is taught in High School world history.

View Quote

Thanks for the link...I will read it later tonight.
btw, what makes you think I went to High School in this country? :-)
In fact, I did not.
And I do not recall ever being taught Arabic Conquests in high school...either pro or anti.
Moreover, just to play devil's advocate, if I had believed everything I was taught in school, I would not believe in God & only believe in evolution.
Thanks again for the link & I will look it over tonight.

Originally Posted By Matrix:
This reminds me of the author who came out recently & said that very few people had firearms during the Revolutionary War. There was/is an uproar over this in the "gun world' but reviewing the book shows references for his point of view.

View Quote

The author in question seems to have been inventing his data.
For example, the data from the probate records he 'researched' back east cannot be duplicated. Efforts to verify his results have come up with [i]very[/i] different numbers than he did, and we can't go back to his original data set since his notes were 'destroyed by a flood'.
On the west coast, he has come up with records that don't even seem to exist. His claimed source for this material says it was destroyed prior to 1907.
See the recent article in the Boston Globe.
[url]www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/254/nation/New_doubts_about_gun_historian+.shtml[/url]
[red]just thought i'd help you out with that link. hope you don't mind. --ARlady[/red]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
[url]http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/his211/LectureTwo/ArabConquests636.htm[/url]
I cant beleve you dont know this. This is taught in High School world history.

View Quote

Thanks for the link...I will read it later tonight.
btw, what makes you think I went to High School in this country? :-)
In fact, I did not.
And I do not recall ever being taught Arabic Conquests in high school...either pro or anti.
Moreover, just to play devil's advocate, if I had believed everything I was taught in school, I would not believe in God & only believe in evolution.
Thanks again for the link & I will look it over tonight.

View Quote

Sir, I think you are nothing but a damn troll.
I kick myself for posting that link.
I should have just said that if you are too lazy and ignorant to have not even learned a basic outline of western civilizaton, you shouldnt even be posting on this subject.
There is no pro or anti on the Arab conquests- they happened 12 centuries ago. The Caliphs of Islam after Mohommad destroyed the Empire of the Sassinid Persians; took Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt from the Byzantine Empire; destroyed the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, and finally conquered Visagotic Spain. This is just the western half. They also penetrated east as far as the Indus before being stopped by the Chinese. This is FACT. I cannot beleve that any adult educated in the western world would not know this.

and if someone really wanted to, they could probably make a case for the same exact actions and attitudes for Christians using the Bible.

View Quote

Yes, they could [u]try[/u], but it would be a pretty specious argument that anything that Christ said during His earthly ministry could be construed to require His followers, or even permit, His followers to injure anyone, much less kill them in His Name or in the Name of His Father!
Can you think of any verses by Jesus that may invite or encourage the belief that He desires or accepts a follower to bring injury or death to another human being?
Eric The(ICan't!)Hun[>]:)]

Wasn't there a statement by Jesus commanding his followers: "He that hath not a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one"?
A cloak in those days was an important garment; its loss was a discomfort at best, an invitation to hypothermia at worst. Obviously Jesus thought the possession of a sword to be important.
Also, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples cut off the ear of one of the soldiers with a sword, showing at least one of them was armed, and conspicuously so at that.
Jesus stopped the violence at that point, but no mention is made of any rebuke at the carrying of a sword.

"The M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." General George S. Patton Jr.,US Army

A distinction between Christianity and Islam might be made here. As said, most religions have been twisted to allow violence against others. BUT, if some group (ie Crusades) killed in the name of Christ they were completely out of bounds with anything Christ preached and could not be supported by the New Testament. However, if Islam gives justification in any part of its teaching from the Quran that approves of violence towards others I say that is inherintly different than Christianity. Christ never would have led an army of destruction as Muhhamed did. The distinction is that Muslims could possibly justify their actions by the text of their holy book. And I beleive that you cannot justify violence by the text of the Bible.

Wasn't there a statement by Jesus commanding his followers: He that hath not a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one.

View Quote

raf, Buddy, do you have a gun? How many folks have you injured or killed?

Also, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples cut off the ear of one of the soldiers, showing at least one of them was armed, and conspicuously so at that.

View Quote

Yes, Peter drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. Whereupon, Jesus rebuked him and said:
[red][b]"Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword."[/b][/red] [i]Matthew 26:52[/i]
In answer to Pontius Pilate, who asked Jesus if He were a king, Jesus replied:
[red][b]"My Kingdom is not of this world: if My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is My Kingdom not from hence."[/b][/red] [i]John 18:36[/i]
Eric The(I'mArmed,NotCauseI'mChristian,ButCauseI'm­Human!)Hun[>]:)]

Well, Eric, I am NO Biblical scholar, so I don't want to get into a Biblical discussion with someone who can quote chapter and verse. [;)]
However, the quote about buying a sword always stuck in my mind. When you think on it, a sword is rather less utilitarian than a gun since hunting with a sword is almost impossible.
I rather doubt that Jesus was suggesting buying a sword for fencing or collecting.
Also, I have always had the impression that Jesus stopped his followers' resistance and allowed himself to be arrested specifically for the purpose of fulfilling prophecy.

"The M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." General George S. Patton Jr.,US Army

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:
A distinction between Christianity and Islam might be made here. As said, most religions have been twisted to allow violence against others. BUT, if some group (ie Crusades) killed in the name of Christ they were completely out of bounds with anything Christ preached and could not be supported by the New Testament. However, if Islam gives justification in any part of its teaching from the Quran that approves of violence towards others I say that is inherintly different than Christianity. Christ never would have led an army of destruction as Muhhamed did. The distinction is that Muslims could possibly justify their actions by the text of their holy book. And I beleive that you cannot justify violence by the text of the Bible.

View Quote

That is a little too broad. You cant justify [i]agression[/i] with the Christian Bible. But if you defend yourself from a murderer, which is permitted, you are still comitting violence. And even then you could use aggression to defend the faith. Jesus and his apostles, at the very least, did lay hands upon the money lenders for defiling the Temple.

Jesus said turn the other cheek if someone strikes you. He did not say if someone wants to kill you to let them. A sword would be handy for self defense.
He was allowed to be taken and killed, this one point shows you the almost "infinite non violence" Jesus thought was important compared to Muhammed leading bloody battles.

Swords were used for many things in the ancient world, including cutting food and firewood. So let's not get hung up on Jesus' advice to go and buy a sword. Righteousness was considered a sword by Paul in his writings.
But the early Church was noted for its pacifism and conscientious objection to war! There were great debates about whether Christians were able to even become soldiers in any army! The oath to the Emperor was one obstacle. The fact that soldiers engaged in warfare was another.
But I'm not worried! There is no prohibition in the Bible from Jesus against carrying a sword or a firearm and protecting yourself against the evil of this world.
Eric The(EvenIfItWereASin,It'sNotUnpardonableSin)H­un[>]:)]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Swords were used for many things in the ancient world, including cutting food and firewood. So let's not get hung up on Jesus' advice to go and buy a sword. Righteousness was considered a sword by Paul in his writings.

View Quote

Well, Eric, the disciples were common men, and practical men. I would think that they were no strangers to knives and axes, and how and when to use them. And when to use a sword.
Hmmmmm, are you saying that it's OK to ignore Jesus specific statements?
Paul's discussion of Righteousness and the sword was clearly an allegory, and should be so read and understood.
Sleepy-time now, bye.

"The M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." General George S. Patton Jr.,US Army

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:
A distinction between Christianity and Islam might be made here. As said, most religions have been twisted to allow violence against others. BUT, if some group (ie Crusades) killed in the name of Christ they were completely out of bounds with anything Christ preached and could not be supported by the New Testament. However, if Islam gives justification in any part of its teaching from the Quran that approves of violence towards others I say that is inherintly different than Christianity. Christ never would have led an army of destruction as Muhhamed did. The distinction is that Muslims could possibly justify their actions by the text of their holy book. And I beleive that you cannot justify violence by the text of the Bible.

I think you must view Jesus warning in context (NIV):
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?54But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
I take this to mean Jesus didn't want a sword drawn during this specific unfolding scriptural event. It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself or your family, or your nation.
Jim

Jesus' ministry was not one of civics and national defense, He was speaking about the hearts of men and the treatment we give each other on a personnel level. Some people use Jesus' words as a front to their pacifism. This is totally false and a misreading of the New Testament.
God gave humanity the Old Testament in order to show how nations are to behave. Read it from Joshua through 2 Chronicles for a look at how God commands nations to act in times of war and peace. It is exciting stuff.
The Bible is a complete study of human culture, but to take any portion of it out of context, twists the meanings as humans see fit.

Originally Posted By Torf:
Jesus' ministry was not one of civics and national defense, He was speaking about the hearts of men and the treatment we give each other on a personnel level. Some people use Jesus' words as a front to their pacifism. This is totally false and a misreading of the New Testament.
God gave humanity the Old Testament in order to show how nations are to behave. Read it from Joshua through 2 Chronicles for a look at how God commands nations to act in times of war and peace. It is exciting stuff.
The Bible is a complete study of human culture, but to take any portion of it out of context, twists the meanings as humans see fit.

View Quote

Yes,
and also remember this:
"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets...till heaven and earth disappear not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law..." Matthew 5:17,18
Jesus in his life on earth beleved in and lived by what we call the Old Testament, while he often shocked people by leaving what had become traditional practices of observance, he never transgressed Mosaic Law. He surrendered himself to what was appropriate authority, the fact that the people who were exercising authority were abusing it for their selfish aims did not justify HIM violating the law. That is why his followers never used their swords.

It is my understanding that true Islam is very peace loving. It is gets "freaky" when radicals, like Bin Laden, interpret the words to suit themsleves. Interpreting and distorting them them to there worst possible defintions and meanings. The Jihad, again to my understanding, was meant to be a cleansing of one's soul not a cleansing of the land.

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
[url]http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/classes/his211/LectureTwo/ArabConquests636.htm[/url]
I cant beleve you dont know this. This is taught in High School world history.

View Quote

Thanks for the link...I will read it later tonight.
btw, what makes you think I went to High School in this country? :-)
In fact, I did not.
And I do not recall ever being taught Arabic Conquests in high school...either pro or anti.
Moreover, just to play devil's advocate, if I had believed everything I was taught in school, I would not believe in God & only believe in evolution.
Thanks again for the link & I will look it over tonight.

View Quote

Sir, I think you are nothing but a damn troll.
I kick myself for posting that link.
I should have just said that if you are too lazy and ignorant to have not even learned a basic outline of western civilizaton, you shouldnt even be posting on this subject.
There is no pro or anti on the Arab conquests- they happened 12 centuries ago. The Caliphs of Islam after Mohommad destroyed the Empire of the Sassinid Persians; took Syria, the Holy Land, and Egypt from the Byzantine Empire; destroyed the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, and finally conquered Visagotic Spain. This is just the western half. They also penetrated east as far as the Indus before being stopped by the Chinese. This is FACT. I cannot beleve that any adult educated in the western world would not know this.

View Quote

damn troll? lazy? ignorant?
Whats the matter? Did I hit a nerve? I don't recall calling you any names.
Thanks for the history lesson. You can test me on it later after my muddled mind has sifted through it Einstein.
I can't believe that any adult educated in the western world would really believe that Islam is a religion of death & mayhem...however, you are free to believe whatever you wish...as am I.
And, sir, I will post on whatever I wish, whenever I wish...its why I live in this country so I don't have to take any BS flack from know it alls who "can't believe" this or that.
As I stated earlier, I am not a historian & frankly don't give a damn what happened 12 centuries ago.
I know you have already heard this quote & most likely written a dissertation on it, but I will post it for the rest of us brainless folks.
""Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war.) Appius Claudius (the Blind), Roman Senate, 281 B.C.

Now you have proven you are a troll.
I never anywhere said that Islam was any more or less a religion of death and destruction than Christianity was.
Islam, like Christianity is the product of its history. You cannot understand it without understanding its history.

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Now you have proven you are a troll.
I never anywhere said that Islam was any more or less a religion of death and destruction than Christianity was.
Islam, like Christianity is the product of its history. You cannot understand it without understanding its history.

and if someone really wanted to, they could probably make a case for the same exact actions and attitudes for Christians using the Bible.

View Quote

Yes, they could [u]try[/u], but it would be a pretty specious argument that anything that Christ said during His earthly ministry could be construed to require His followers, or even permit, His followers to injure anyone, much less kill them in His Name or in the Name of His Father!
Can you think of any verses by Jesus that may invite or encourage the belief that He desires or accepts a follower to bring injury or death to another human being?
Eric The(ICan't!)Hun[>]:)]

View Quote

i said that someone could [i]probably[/i] make a case. i didn't say it would be logical and i didn't say that it would make sense. nor did i say that i would believe it just because he/she happened to be quoting Scriptures. nor did i say that it would accurate or justifiable.
i made that comment because anybody can use any religion to their own purposes if they try hard enough be it Christianity, Islam, or whatever. additionally, i have a hard time assigning credibility to what some darn encyclopedic definition says is the true Islamic [i]jihad[/i] based on the selfish desires of the supposed followers who have bastardized that meaning for there own purposes.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:
A distinction between Christianity and Islam might be made here. As said, most religions have been twisted to allow violence against others. BUT, if some group (ie Crusades) killed in the name of Christ they were completely out of bounds with anything Christ preached and could not be supported by the New Testament. However, if Islam gives justification in any part of its teaching from the Quran that approves of violence towards others I say that is inherintly different than Christianity. Christ never would have led an army of destruction as Muhhamed did. The distinction is that Muslims could possibly justify their actions by the text of their holy book. And I beleive that you cannot justify violence by the text of the Bible.

View Quote

That is a little too broad. You cant justify [i]agression[/i] with the Christian Bible. But if you defend yourself from a murderer, which is permitted, you are still comitting violence. And even then you could use aggression to defend the faith. Jesus and his apostles, at the very least, did lay hands upon the money lenders for defiling the Temple.

View Quote

agreed, and even though i can't recite the Scriptures chapter and verse like EricTheHun (although i wish i could), i do know their are instances in the Bible when God led the Jews against their enemies. and there are instances when He told them to spare the people and instances where He told them to kill every living thing.
and before you jump on me EricTheHun, i'm not saying that this in any way shape or form is an example of Christianity condoning aggressive, violent, or terrorist-like behavior. i'm just saying that someone could use this as an example to justify his own reasons for wanting to off someone. would he be wrong? most definitely. would he believe he was right? most definitely.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Figure out what book that's from.
Geez people if you now are saying "That's it we should nuke a whole bunch of countrys because of what thousands of years old text they read" your as damned crazy as those guys.

Originally Posted By erickm:
"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Figure out what book that's from.
Geez people if you now are saying "That's it we should nuke a whole bunch of countrys because of what thousands of years old text they read" your as damned crazy as those guys.

View Quote

Are you saying we should let some thousands of years old document [i]keep[/i] us from nuking a bunch of countries if they need it?

Here are the pertinent points:
Islam IS an inherently violent religion. To suggest otherwise is to ignore centuries of history.
Islam is at odds with Christianity, (and every other religion) for the hearts, minds, wealth, and souls of the earth.
Other religions can also justly be called violent. However, we are not at war with them.
People who practice Islam, have declared Jihad against all Americans. It is therefore our duty to destroy them before they destroy us.
It is actually very simple. US or Them.
We did not start this fight, but we need to finish it.

Originally Posted By sopmodm4:
Screw all of this "candy coated" proMuslim propaganda!Go read the Koran for yourself and you will know what Islam is really about.
sopmodm4a3

View Quote

Actually, there are three levels of interpretation of the Quran.
The first being that of human interpretation.
The second being human also but of those that are "enlightened" by the light of God.
The final being God's intended meaning...that only God Himself knows.
Thats what I was taught.

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
Here are the pertinent points:
Islam IS an inherently violent religion. To suggest otherwise is to ignore centuries of history.
Islam is at odds with Christianity, (and every other religion) for the hearts, minds, wealth, and souls of the earth.
Other religions can also justly be called violent. However, we are not at war with them.
People who practice Islam, have declared Jihad against all Americans. It is therefore our duty to destroy them before they destroy us.
It is actually very simple. US or Them.
We did not start this fight, but we need to finish it.

View Quote

I'm glad you're not in charge...at least we have level headed, rational people in Washington who did not just blast away nukes at the Middle East...although it may still come to that.
People who practice Islam? I don't think so.
They are radical, fanatical, religious zealots who have a twisted & warped view of what Islam is...in my opinion.